A Section 18 reference cannot be rejected for lack of a written application when the compensation objection is admitted.

The petitioner challenged the Subordinate Judge, Chengam’s dismissal of LAOP No. 21 of 2020.

The dismissal rested on the finding that no written application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act had been made within the prescribed limitation period.

The petitioner relied on a reference order dated 18 July 2005, which recorded that the landowners objected to the compensation as below market value and sought enhancement to Rs. 1,00,000 per acre, though they had filed no documentary evidence supporting that amount.

The acquisition related to land acquired in 1988.

Whether the LAOP could be dismissed for want of a written request under Section 18(1) when the revenue authority’s reference recorded the landowners’ objection to the compensation and request for enhancement?

Whether similarly situated LAOPs concerning the same award and acquisition proceedings could be dismissed on the same ground?

Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act provides for a claimant dissatisfied with an award to seek a reference for determination of the matter by the court.

The Court treated the revenue authority’s recorded acknowledgment of the landowners’ objection and request for enhanced compensation as evidence of their grievance; on that basis, it held that the LAOP should not be rejected merely because there was no separate written request.

The reference order recorded that the landowners considered the compensation below prevailing market value and sought enhancement.

The Court considered this recorded request sufficient to establish their dissatisfaction, noting that the revenue authorities had not disputed that a request for enhancement had been made.

It therefore held that the Subordinate Judge should not have dismissed the LAOP for non-compliance with Section 18(1), but should have decided the claim on its merits.

For the same reason, it directed that other LAOPs concerning the same award and acquisition proceedings not be dismissed solely for want of a written request.

The Subordinate Judge was directed to dispose of the matter within four months, given the age of the acquisition.

The Court further directed that LAOPs relating to the same award and acquisition proceedings not be dismissed solely for want of a written request under Section 18(1).

The order dated 9 October 2026 changed the respondent’s counsel’s name and left the original order otherwise unaltered.